opendss_run_qsts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the prerequisite state requirements and the nature of the result (convergence status plus final-state voltage summary). It does not disclose cost/duration or failure behavior for long yearly runs (8760h), so a 4 rather than 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and mode support are front-loaded, then prerequisites, then args and returns — a logical order. Slight redundancy between the separate sentences about LoadShapes and the Args block, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simulation tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the prerequisite workflow (compile, define LoadShapes), the mode options, and the argument list, which is close to complete. The unmentioned monitor_bus and response_format parameters are the only notable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The Args section names only mode, stepsize, and number of steps, omitting monitor_bus and response_format from the nested QSTSInput. With low reported schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves meaningful parameters undocumented, landing at the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Run a quasi-static time series (QSTS) simulation') and enumerates the supported modes (daily, yearly, dutycycle), which distinguishes it from the many sibling run_*/get_* tools that never perform time-series solving. An agent can identify this tool without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states clear prerequisites ('circuit must be compiled first', 'LoadShapes must already be defined'), which is real when-to-use guidance for a simulation tool. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of the top score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.